Torching the cabin was wrong.

That's my conclusion.

No, I'm not law enforcement. Obviously I wasn't there, but I think it was wrong on so many levels. I don't see how Dorner, once trapped in the cabin and surrounded, posed any threat. He couldn't possibly have had a rocket launcher, for example. He'd fled from the stolen vehicle on foot.

It was wrong from a PR perspective. Killing him under these circumstances will add a lot of weight in the minds of some, that law enforcement, specifically the LAPD, were trying to make sure that he didn't have a chance to ever speak again.

It was wrong from a moral perspective to kill him if he didn't pose a threat.

I believe that Dornan was a sick murderer bent on causing pain to those whom he believed wronged him. I don't buy that he was "pushed" into becoming a murderer by the LAPD even if his claims are all 100% factual, but that doesn't make what law enforcement did yesterday at that cabin, justifiable.

The details are odd. They pulled down all four walls of the cabin prior to the fire, so why did they lob the tear gas.

<snip>

A law enforcement source told the Times officers broke windows, fired tear gas and called to Dorner, the ex-Los Angeles police officer wanted for a total of four slayings and the wounding of three law enforcement officers, to surrender. The source said police used equipment to pull down the cabin walls "one by one, like peeling an onion" when Dorner failed to answer, and heard a single gunshot as they got to the last wall.

14. They had acheived containment, but had no patience.

I can't say whether with darkness coming on if the commander on scene felt that nightfall would change that. With the cabin surrounded and night-vision technology available it seems questionable.

IMO, society didn't get what it deserved. Death by cop is undesirable, destruction of property is undesirable if it can be avoided. We'll never know if it could have been avoided because the police decided to launch devices into the building that
according to recorded conversation were part of a plan to burn the building down.

235. And law enforcement made it perfectly clear with their first ambush on a citizen

239. Dorner could have, during his week while on the run,

contacted a lawyer, media personell, and any number of people to escort him to any police station, didn't have to be an LAPD station, could have been any police dept. station, and surrendered himself with all the witness's present.
Instead, he CHOSE the course of action, he CHOSE not to surrender, he CHOSE to shoot it out with police and in the process, he killed 2 police officers and 2 civilians.
Dorner is responsible for Dorner being killed.

As far as what those LAPD officers did to the innocent civilians, those officers should be punished severely and Los Angeles should pay a hefty settlement.

244. C'mon, they're all members of the same damn club

Certainly he is responsible. But that doesn't negate the proven fact that the authorities were never going to let him walk out alive. You really think that you can make me believe that the authorities would give a shit about the people with him? Hell, they didn't give a shit about shooting up people that weren't with him. There were two women in that truck! What if it been Dorner and an attorney going to turn himself in?

They wanted to kill the cop killer, they wanted to kill him bad and they did!

248. Oh really?

They were going to shoot or kill him in the police station? C'mon, be realistic, with all the intense scrutiny on this incident, the police wouldn't dare try anything. Especially with all the witness's saying that he surrendered himself to the proper authorities.

250. he never would have made it to any police station

you and I both know that. Like I said, there were two women in that truck. There were witnesses. It didn't stop anyone from shooting up the truck nor the other car they ambushed. Those two women wern't shooting at the police when they were fired upon, their vehicle just vaguely fit the description. There was no attempt to cut them off, pull them over or order them out of the car. I believe it was something like 60 bullets that were fired into the truck from behind. That alone shows what law enforcement's intent was.

Judge, jury and executioner is the role law enforcement played in this tragedy and that makes me uncomfortable in a country where I was taught that people are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

253. What do you mean he wouldn't have made it to any police station?

You're telling me that a man as resourceful as Dorner was couldn't figure out a way to make it to a police station?
If he made it his intention of surrendering himself and with a lawyer and media personel in tow, the police wouldn't dare try to anything, especially if he just showed up unannounced with an entourage of witness's.
It really doesn't matter, Dorner had NO INTENTION of giving up, his intention was to kill as many of the people listed on his manifesto as he could before they took him down.

254. I think you give him too much credit

I think if he were really resourceful or smart, he would have killed many more than he did. I'm sure he had no intention of giving up. However, I'm just as certain that the authorities were never going to allow it either.

on edit.

you know, it's sad that I don't know what is worse. Someone driven by perhaps mental illness and feeling so much dispair and hopelessness that their life or anyone else's life any longer has value and commits such an atrocity or by those who are driven to kill by vengence.

255. You may very well be right about the police never allowing him to surrender,

but if he had contacted a lawyer and the media to accompany him to a police station of his choosing, and if they had hidden him until they arrived at the station, then he would have been arrested and would have his day in court.

Instead, he CHOSE to go out in a, pardon the pun, blaze of glory while trying to take as many officers with him as he could.

173. There are different types of teargas cannisters.

Some of them are "cold", specifically, the ones intended to be used indoors.

The ones the LAPD used on Dorner are "hot" - they release CS gas pyrotechnically, and should not be used indoors where they have a tendency to start fires. They literally burn, and it looks like these cannisters burned that cabin down. And that probably has something to do with the nickname "burner".

186. If it wasn't LAPD, who was it?

FBI was on the scene, but I'm going from what I heard from the recordings of the police radio traffic, which sounded like LAPD to me. "Burners are in place." "Burn the motherfucker!" That sort of thing.

187. LAPD werent there. San Bernardino Sheriffs were there.

238. The police don't get to convict people for murder

That's the court's job.

Yes, there was very strong evidence that Dorner was the killer, but until he had his day in court, he was innocent until proven guilty. I know it sucks to hear that, but that's how our justice system works.

As with every suspect for every crime, the police had the responsibility to take Dorner alive, if possible. They chose not to wait him out and let him surrender peacefully, but instead attacked the structure with incendiary tear gas.

81. Or shot himself, then set the....

278. What do you mean it's not clear who torched the cabin?

Of course it is clear, CNN has footage which I heard myself of officers yelling to "torch him" just moments before they shot the canisters into the cabin. How much clearer does it need to be? The spokesman for the police said they did not torch the cabin on purpose, which is another way of saying, they did in fact torch the cabin just not intentionally.

The police played judge, jury, and executioner. The police murdered Dorner.

5. Torching the cabin is one thing...

as it seems to be modus operandi for our enforcement agencies, but for an organization that is already considered racist, brutal, sexist and corrupt by many, saying, "Let's burn that motherfucker down", etc was an extremely poor choice of words. People are excusing it, but these are trained law enforcement officers who should damn well know better.

9. I don't think there's any question they wanted to summarily execute him if given the opportunity

That was obvious when the cops were opening fire on innocent people thinking it was him. Is it wrong? Well if he's firing at police, then it's not wrong IMO. But the innocent people who were shot were just going about their business and obviously weren't firing at cops.

133. We disagree on

the use of deadly force being appropriate. We don't yet know if he was firing on LE from the cabin. Besides, I have no problem with the police simply resorting to old siege warfare tactics. The cabin was surrounded, he wasn't going to escape...starve him out or let him shoot himself. Had he come out firing, deadly force would have been appropriate, but I have a problem with the bullying tactics of our police, our military and our government. We have more weapons, more bombs, more drones and we are happy to use them. I have a real problem with the LAPD opening fire on two women who were merely delivering newspapers.

Was he a threat? Well, he had been but I don't know what real threat he presented trapped in a cabin and we'll never know what might have come out in a trial will we? IMHO there was never any intention of taking him alive and that doesn't speak well of our LE or our own national morality.

158. They were shot before he got to this cabin, I believe....

This was the second cabin he broke into. I'm not saying he could have been taken alive...I am just saying I don't believe the police had any intention of doing so. The way it played out, tearing down the cabin walls, using tear gas and then burning down the cabin.... You're absolutely correct in wishing they hadn't done that...but what better way to destroy any evidence he might have had that his accusations were true...Which is NOT to say I think that would justify his killing spree...it doesn't.

Had the police settled in for a siege he could have fired all the rounds he wanted, without injuring anyone.

How cavalierly all of you accept the death of another human being.

All of us on those threads agreed that Dorner would not be coming out of this alive.

194. All the more reason to not burn down the cabin...

Look, Dorner was clearly deranged. And, I am not as certain as you that Dorner believed he had any chance of being taken alive.

I apologize, I did not mean to imply you are heartless. I am simply frustrated with a society that seems to think force is always the answer....no wonder the NRA thinks they can continue being as absurd about gun violence as they are.

198. It all comes down to the fact that Dorner

started this whole tragic incident by murdering 2 innocent people, shooting 2 Riverside police officers, killing one, car jackings, shooting at Fish and Game Wardens, shooting 2 SBCSD deputies, killing one and then exchanging gunfire with the officers surrounding the cabin and refusing to give up.
This whole incident really had only one ending and Dorner had no intention of it ending any other way.

201. "seems to think force is always the answer"

I don't think anyone believes "force is always the answer."

As I've noted, if it was up to me... I don't even support the death penalty.

But if we are going to talk about things like "due process" and "Constitutional rights", Dorner was not some borderline case - there was probable cause to believe he was off the charts dangerous, had a demonstrated propensity to kill, and was well within the Constitutional boundaries of deadly force within the Constitutional limits, such as they stand.

282. Tell the 4 people whom the LAPD almost killed in the previous days about the rules of engagement.

The LAPD showed no respect for rules or laws in their haste to murder Dorner, they had absolutely zero intention of taking him alive no matter the circumstances. They have shut the mouth of someone who knew them from the inside, someone who tried to expose them.

298. You didn't fact check anything, you aren't even sure of your own opinion!

300. I would welcome your correction, if you have one.

But LAPD were not at Big Bear. That I am quite sure about. It was SBCo with assistance from US Marshalls and FBI. This was reported the night of the standoff. LAPD would not be there as Big Bear is miles and miles from LA and in another county.

If you have documentation that says otherwise, let's see it. Otherwise, I stand by the information I received from DUers who were listening via scanners as it was going down and reportage from the scene.

Big Bear Lake is about 90 miles from LA. LAPD have no jurisdiction there.

22. You don't know that and no, I don't see the cops on the scene as being as bad as Dorner

He'd murdered 4 people in cold blood and he had the opportunity yesterday to turn himself in when stopped by the fish and game wardens. He chose to open fire instead. He bears a huge amount of responsibility for his fate.

104. Link to DUer saying that, please

106. Do you support the police setting the cabin on fire?

If you do, there you go.

Support for this "tactic" is absolutely advocating murdering someone with fire. Maybe you're comfortable with the police doing that, so long as the target is a "bad guy." I'm not. And I'm disgusted by the vomitous sacks of trash who are.

110. I don't even support the death penalty

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

115. Actually,

fire isn't usually the cause of death, smoke inhalation or heat usually gets them first.
But gleefully dancing is a bit over the top, although I won't shed any tears for this monster, the country and world are a better place without this man

120. He was a cop. I think it was speaking his language.

--the message being --when they started to tear the cabin down--"you have one last chance to surrender. Take it or leave it." Harsh yes. Do I think burning it was absolutely right? I need more info to say that. Do think what they did was most likely legal whether we agree with the law or not. Probably. Dorner was a random serial killer. They had a mandate to stop him by any means necessary.

Hey Scoot--Can you talk about this without saying sarcastic things like "I don't know if you knew, but fire kills people..." So would it have been better to fill him full of bullets, literally explode him? This way he did get to kill himself, which was a bit more honorable.

I certainly didn't say barbeque the bastard. And I don't agree with revenge killing. But I think they can argue they gave him a chance to surrender, and if he had come out with his hands up, I think they would have honored it. I certainly wish that had been the scenario. He was a tragic figure, deranged, psychotic. He needed help.

Maybe it was expedient, but that is something to be analyzed afterwards. There were few options.

126. Yes, that absolutely is what you're saying

Well, more accurately, you're saying the police are always right no matter what because they're police, so they are above question even when it results in a suspect's death, and we should just always trust them.

^ comes to mind.

Shooting him when he presents an immediate threat is one thing. If he's shooting and catches a bullet himself, well, that happens. But if he's holed up and they set the place on fire? I can't accept that. If it's accidental, okay. Like I said, I have no idea if it was intentional or not, and my problem is with DU'ers who would support it even if it were.

20. Well they did say burn it:

37. Apparently 'burners' is also a term used for 'incendiary teargas cannisters'.

From your link, near the bottom of the thread, is another post with another link that identifies 'burners' this way.

I'm still withholding judgment on this. And even then I may be willing to come down on the side of the cops on this since waiting around indefinitely while a sharpshooter took shots at them was probably not a good idea.

Dorner was given the chance to surrender. He chose to stay hidden so he could kill more people.

66. You're right.

Burners is the slang word for tear gas because it burns the eyes.
And Dorner had every chance to surrender and he CHOSE to go out the way he did.
He CHOSE badly and paid for it.
I'm not going to shed one single tear for his demise, the country and world is a little bit better place without him.

118. As far as I know,

no there isn't. But I haven't really kept up on the new technology.
Doesn't really matter, Dorner had no intention of being taken alive and he CHOSE to end it this way.
He had ample opportunity to surrender in the week he was on the run and during his last stand and he didn't.

119. I don't know the answer to that one.

Without substantial evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to give the FBI, the U.S. Marshals and the San Bernadino County officers the benefit of the doubt. The LAPD likely had little impact on this decision.

16. The question should be did they INTENTIONALLY torch the cabin or

was that just a byproduct of the tear gas they used in what presumably was an attempt to force him out of the cabin.

Tear gas cannisters by themselves are not really an incendiary device, so one or more of them would have had to land on or near something that was more flammable then normal to trigger the fire.

There is a line between using enough force to cause an armed and dangerous fugitive to surrender, which may or may not result in the injury or death of the fugitive and just outright killing him. It is unlikely that we will ever know if law enforcement crossed that line.

I did not follow the cabin stand off especially closely, but I don't remember seeing anything where law enforcement made any attempt to negotiate.

Note this is not an attempt to defend a murderer, but concern about whether law enforcement had any intention of taking the murderer alive and deliberately ignored options that MIGHT have led to Dorner surrendering.

25. Here's the line, btw

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

46. irrelevent

The opinion you are quoting is irrelevant, nobody is complaining about the cops shooting back when shot at. That case has nothing to do with the discussion about whether it was appropriate to torch the cabin when the suspect was surrounded.

76. I believe the cops deliberately torched it

after tearing into a couple of walls with an armored vehicle. At that point, especially as a cop--he would have understood the message to be crystal clear--"we're coming IN if you don't come OUT--last chance."

So then when he didn't emerge they figured they had the justification to burn it--to make sure he was done for. We will know if he actually did shoot himself --that seems the kind of thing that should be made public. Probably he did, so as to avoid facing anything. He was certainly beyond caring about life or living.

26. According

According to the available audio, it's pretty clear that law enforcement planned to burn down the cabin and did so. Hard to draw any other conclusion when the radio transmissions say to go ahead with the burn that had been discussed and shortly thereafter report that "we have a fire going." Couple that with the fact that they had fire trucks standing by a short distance away and it's pretty obvious that torching the cabin was a planned tactic for ending the siege.

Which begs the question, how could law enforcement be sure that there was nobody else in the cabin besides Dorner, when they gave the go ahead to torch it? In my opinion, it sets a bad precedent in terms of reasonable use of force.

31. From things I've read this was not

LAPD, but a different county, out of their jurisdiction. Be that as it may, if some one is shooting at me and has already murdered one of my co-workers, I think I am entitled to react. But until all the facts are out, all anyone, including you, is doing is speculating and assuming.

93. "... specifically the LAPD..."

"Killing him under these circumstances will add a lot of weight in the minds of some, that law enforcement, specifically the LAPD, were trying to make sure that he didn't have a chance to ever speak again"

and as I said before..we still don't know what happened, you are assuming.

32. There could have been hostages in there...

Or maybe they searched it while Dorner was dead and didn't see any. I would hope that they thought about a hostage situation. But then again, the cabin he was hiding in was right across the street from the command post.

196. I don't know that I would take his comment as proof that the guy is dead.

199. But here you have Kai...

Who

(1) Applied what anyone would consider to be deadly force - Sa-MASH! - to wit, three blows to the head with a hatchet, and

(2) Apparently believed it to be effective to that end.

Whether Kai is mistaken as a matter of fact - and quite frankly, he was much closer to the incident than you or I - is not really relevant to Kai's intent or understanding of the import of his acting on that intent.

I did not mean to suggest that I know for a fact that the guy is dead, but I am willing to give Kai, who apparently says so, the benefit of the doubt, pending further information otherwise. I am willing to accept Kai's statement at face value as to his intent and understanding of the consequences of his action, however, since his mistake of fact is not relevant to his state of mind. He is authoritative on that point.

240. Well, perhaps then the police shouldn't have set a fire.

There's plenty of infrared equipment on the ground and in police helicopters to make sure Dorner did not sneak away undetected.

As for injuries or deaths, there's no need to operate that equipment from within line-of-sight of the cabin. The equipment has to see the cabin, the people monitoring the equipment do not.

If he had decided to "make a run for it", then there indeed could have been danger. But there was plenty of danger in the approach they did use - we're talking about an area where campfires are routinely banned due to the danger of starting a wildfire.

241. Fire fighting equipment was on hand in case it spread.

Long story short, he was going to die in that cabin one way or the other. They were going to shoot him, or he was going to shoot himself. It was never going to be them tackling him or otherwise disarming him.

243. That's right.

He made it crystal clear by his manifesto and his actions that he wasn't going to be taken alive.
Shooting 2 deputies, with one dying, didn't help his case.
I've been saying all day that Dorner, and Dorner alone, is responsible for what happened to Dorner.

100. cali. Dorner had a .50-caliber sniper rifle

>>>As he barricaded himself in an empty cabin, the man believed to be Dorner fired a .50-caliber sniper rifle, shooting two deputies, killing one of them.Following tactical teams, CBS News' crew was caught in the middle of a second firefight<<<

I don't know that much about guns. But I think anyone snooping around Dorner and that gun were as good as dead if he spotted them.

This is a touchy situation. Almost like sending the cops on a suicide mission. Bad situation. Bad deal all the way around.

62. WAIT

ok I'm not a conspiracy type but the cabin was empty, or was it? Wonder if a transient was in there. There is a body yes, but in a scorching fire they find Dorners drivers license close to the body??? Im waiting till the DNA comes back on this one.

77. Torching it was indeed wrong. We are a nation of laws and our law ENFORCEMENT people are bound by

the same laws as the rest of us. It's one thing to use tear gas if you need to. It's another thing entirely to use an incendiary device OR one masquerading as tear gas with the specific intent of causing a fire in order to kill someone.

I am sick to death of all the people calling for outright murder of people before they have even been indicted, let alone tried and convicted. You are a bunch of RW authoritarian thugs, people, and you won't even admit it to yourselves.

103. How is this not law?

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

146. Inane non sequitur is inane. You are awarded no points. nt

206. You had the non sequitur

Speaking as if no one has a right to trial because police can shoot at a fugitive who is shooting at them. You left that part out entirely. People who are arrested or turn themselves in get a trial. You're pretending that it is in doubt.

214. Except you're leaving out the part were they never had any intention to take him alive.

Both video and radio scanner evidence strong supports that they set out to burn him alive. The "shoot out" is a revision of the police were initially talking about: The ammunition inside the cabin going off from the heat of the fire. The only shot from inside the cabin they spoke about at the time - separate from the "shoot out" - was likely the one he'd used to kill himself once he knew he was done for. Instead there's talk amongst the police about using "burners" on the cabin and wondering if the heat will get him in the basement. "Burners" are NOT flashbangs nor are they teargas. Three entirely separate classes of grenades. Burners are a military-grade weapon that are used exactly for what they sound like: Burning things.

Edit: I will clarify myself: The two officers that had been injured/killed may have been involved in an actual shootout with him, but it's also possible that they'd been hit but live ammunition inside the cabin going off from the heat of the fire.

273. Only they know what was in their minds

And this guy is not just some guy - they knew what he wanted and that he did not want to be taken alive. This case is not threatening our rights and it's not summary execution. Had he carefully stated he would surrender, they would have done that even if they had not wanted to.

190. Yes,

and Dorner violated those rights, he never had any intention of being taken alive, he CHOSE to die the way he did, he could have surrendered at any time during the week he was on the run or during his last stand at the cabin.

216. Our rights don't work they way you think they do.

He chose to be a murderous fuckwit, but that does not negate his access to his rights. This Wild West mentality you have almost got three innocent civilians murdered in cold blood by the LAPD/TPD, because the officers involved thought they'd found him and decided to shoot first, ask questions later. None of the victims nor their vehicles matched his appearance or vehicle (to say nothing of the horrendously bad aim of the officers that attacked the first 2 victims... most of their bullets hitting houses rather than the vehicle) but the officers decided he had negated his rights and they had a license-to-kill on him, restraint be damned.

218. You have me confused with someone else.

I didn't condone what LAPD did by firing on those innocent people, all I said was that Dorner CHOSE the course that he did, no one else and he CHOSE not to surrender despite have numerous chances to do so while on the run or during his final stand, but he made it clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive.

139. I dont think this was ever going to be a turn the other cheek situation. he shot police family.

225. I didn't get a chance to respond to you in the thread that was locked, but....

....yes, I do know Dorner was fired from the LAPD in 2009. There could be a variety of reasons why Dorner still had a police badge and ID, like claiming at some point before he was fired that he had lost his badge and/or ID and got a replacement. He wouldn't have been the first police officer to have done that, and he won't be the last.

153. If you'll read the rest of this thread, you'll see that it's not a black & white issue for most.

170. Where are all these blood-lusting mobs of death-mongers I keep hearing about?

Thanks for pointing out that's it's not a simple issue for most of us. Wanting someone stopped does not necessarily mean wanting one's demise. If he is dead I am thankful that he cannot hurt anyone else. My thankfulness has nothing to do with revenge.

175. I would always have preferred Dorner to be taken alive.

I don't believe in the death penalty. For anyone. I would bet most DUers think the same.

But with the FBI, the U.S. Marshal Service, the San Bernadio PD and the LAPD all working together, I'm much more inclined to think there is enough expertise gathered in one place for them to be fairly certain of what they were doing.

I don't have absolute faith or trust in LE but in a case like this, I'm not going to second-guess them all that much, either.

191. not even close, this post is different from the others which are rightly being criticized as

147. What we had there was a failure to communicate...

I'm not trying to be flip or anything, but I really can't forget the fact that this guy was ex-cop, himself.

Listening to that audio of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Dept. totally freaking, hysterically calling for burning Dorner out, and also that other one, where the scanner traffic indicates that they consciously went to Plan B, "the burn", I have a feeling that all of the law enforcement who were on the scene late yesterday afternoon (ie. Sheriff's Dept, Swat, Federal Marshals, FBI, and who knows what all else) wanted this manhunt over before nightfall. They knew that they were dealing with an expert marksman, ex-cop, former military, who had gone rogue to the extreme, and they dealt with that, accordingly.

I agree that the way they handled things was wrong, but I think that it was to be expected.

None of the things I've seen reported during this past week, not the planned and then desperate actions taken by Dorner or the manner in which various law enforcement (probably planned, but also desperate) handled the situation, were right from a humane perspective, but none of it surprises me. I don't find much cause to use the term "moral" and law enforcement or even ex-cop, within the same sentence. I am no fan of our justice system, that's all.

160. If Dorner was in there armed

and still able to shoot more people, then I think law enforcement needed to end it. The guy had proven he was a cop-killer, so as long as he's capable of doing more harm, even from within a cabin, you bring it to an end as swiftly as possible. Otherwise, let's say you wait a few hours for him to give himself up and he shoots and kills more cops as they surround the cabin. How would you justify that 'wait him out solution' to the spouses and kids of the dead cops? The guy's obviously armed, dangerous, and ready to kill more people. I'm glad they took him out sooner rather than later.

185. So the police torched it?

I thought that it was a tear gas canister that set it off since cabins are pretty much all dried wood and in some cases that can cause a fire.

If the police were going to torch the place they may as well just have used a drone to fire a missile at it. Oooops. Don't give them any ideas.

When I first heard on the news that a "tactical response" was in progress, I envisioned a Swat team tossing tear gas in there and storming the place. When I first saw the smoke that's what I thought happened but then there was alot of smoke. Obviously not tear gas. I guess torching the place and knocking down the walls can be considered a "tactical response."

He did kill another police officer. I imagine all bets were off after that. "Kill the MFer!!!!"

189. This Reminded Me Of Police Torching The Symbionese Liberation Army Safehouse

Back in 1974. Like this, it was treated like a military operation so the house was torched by tear gas canisters and allowed to burn. That happened even though authorities thought that Patty Hearst was likely inside (that turned out not to be the case, thankfully). In both cases cop killers were holed up and armed so we're talking about some terrible people but roasting them alive as a tactic?

211. At this point, are they even sure what caused the fire?

The assumption is that it was ignited by tear gas thrown in by the police. I have no problem with them using tear gas to try to remove him. He really didn't leave them any other options. Unfortunate that tear gas can ignite fires but he had many opportunities to give himself up and refused. Not to mention that he had lobbed a smoke bomb at them in an attempt to flee the cabin.

I'm sure there were concerns about it getting dark and the darkness giving him an advantage for a possible escape. They couldn't allow him to continue killing and that's what he had vowed to do.

I think you said it best when you said in the OP "It was wrong from a moral perspective to kill him if he didn't pose a threat." While that is true, that certainly was not the case in this instance. He very much posed a threat to each officer there. He was trained by both military and police - he was better armed than the police - and every officer there was in harms way. All he had to do was get off a lucky shot out the window.

The police may have done some things wrong but yesterday wasn't one of them. The guy died the way he wanted to and he won't kill again. That's a win-win in my book.

223. They are not separate from tear gas.

Burners is slang for the type of tear gas cannister used by police, it is a pyrotechnic type of tear gas cannister, the term "burner" is because this type of tear gas burns the mucous membrane, the eyes and the nose.

258. I can't find any reference outside of this event showing "burner" to be slang for teargas...

Highly suspicious and convenient claim. Smells like revisionist, ass-covering bullshit from law enforcement desperate to whitewash. Regardless, out of all the teargas they could have used, they deliberate CHOSE the one known to start fires and audio recordings of the incident show that. Moreover, SB could have used military hand-me-down burners that do what they say on the box: Fires aren't incidental, they're by design.

259. I speak from experience.

What's yours?
It's the slang word for these type of tear gas cannisters because they burn the mucous membrane, the eyes and the nose.
These particular "burners" are pyrotechnic tear gas cannisters that ignite by using a thermite igniter to start the process.
They shouldn't really be used in a wooden cabin because of their potential for starting a fire.
From what I've learned, they deployed a cold tear gas cannister first to try to convince the suspect to surrender and when that failed, they went to the "burners", which usually convinces the suspect to surrender, however, Dorner had made it crystal clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive.

He CHOSE the course of action taken, he CHOSE not to surrender, he CHOSE to shoot it out with the police, he CHOSE the method of his demise, he CHOSE badly.

260. And again, I can find no reference to this "slang" outside this incident. Highly unlikely it'd go...

...unnoticed as slang until now. You can fly your "experience" canard all you like, but the smell of bullshit still hangs heavy in the air over the claim that this is slang. Regardless, the audio recordings of the incident contradicts the official story about giving him chances to surrender from the cabin or how they actually deployed these "burners" whichever type they may have been. The evidence is quite clear - and damning - they used these *specifically* because they'd ignite the cabin.

263. "This is an internal thing." Ooo, pulling the "secret knowledge" card. Right. You do know slang is

generally cataloged online beyond Wikipedia, right? There are police forums populated by police officers, military forums populated by military personnel, all manner of of news sites tailored to those groups. Google trawls for whatever hits it can on search terms, and "burners teargas" came up with numerous hits from sources generated within the past 24 hours or so, but I still can't find any beyond this incident even after adding "-dorner"

All these years, and not one reference anywhere on the web that I can find beyond this incident connecting "burners" with teargas. I'd be willing to concede the slang claim if there were evidence to back it up, and I've been trying to find just that. I'm not taking the word of some anonymous poster and their claimed experience.

271. You were proven wrong and you call it tenuous?

Admit it, I was right and you were wrong about the term burner being slang for that type of tear gas.
And you don't know that the Sheriff's Dept. "deliberately" choose a weapon to ignite the cabin, you weren't there.
I contend that they choose the best available weapon at their disposal at the time to end what was a very dangerous situation, Dorner had already made it clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive and he proved it by shooting 2 more cops with one being killed as he entered that cabin.
The bottom line is that Dorner CHOSE how Dorner died.

285. Yes, I call it tenuous. The quote is oddly phrased and given only one example out of how many years?

You can bitch and moan all you like, I was willing to simply concede the matter of whether or not it was slang as it remains irrelevant to the main point that the police knowingly chose to burn the cabin with a weapon they knew could do just that.

There. Is. Audio. Recordings. Of. Them. Discussing. The. Pre-planned. Deployment. Of. Weapons. Known. To. Induce. Fires. Specifically. To. Burn. The. Cabin. Down. You weren't there either, but people were recording what was said by the police over radio. Pretending they weren't caught on tape saying highly suspect and frankly damning things is like conservatives pretending they didn't say the things they said on recorded television.

224. No, they are not as effective as the pyrotechnic type tear gas cannister.

Usually the cold cannister is deployed first to try to convince a barricaded suspect to surrender and if that fails, the the "burner" is deployed, usually to great effect.
The down side is that they sometime ignite a fire.

222. a bit more info here:

*snip*

SWAT officers surrounding the cabin were under a "constant barrage of gunfire," one source said. “He put himself in that position. There weren’t a lot of options.”

Hoping to end the standoff, law enforcement authorities first lobbed "traditional" tear gas into the cabin. When that did not work, they opted to use CS gas canisters, which are known in law enforcement parlance as incendiary tear gas. These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire. This gas can cause humans to have burning eyes and start to feel as if they are being starved for oxygen. It is often used to drive barricaded individuals out.

275. Thanks for reinforcing my point. Shooting the mentally ill if they pose a threat

isn't what I call civilized living. Where is the empathy for someone not functioning properly. Do people want empathy when they have something go wrong with their mental functioning, such as getting exposed to a harmful drug or to chemicals in the workplace?

287. He didn't "pose a threat" - he actually killed people. If there was any chance he would kill someone

else he should be stopped ASAP. Anyone who would kill someone, in my opinion is "not functioning properly". Would you want to be the next one sent in to drive this guy to the psych hospital?? It's not like he wasn't give a hundred chances to surrender peacefully.

I'm in the mental health industry, which is why I responded to your post in the first place, and as compassionate and empathetic as the psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, etc. that I work with are to mental health issues, it is a given that if they pose an imminent threat of violence to others they should be stopped, even if it means killing them. It's sad but not nearly as sad as him killing multiple innocent people and STILL trying to kill people.

288. I didn't hear about other people being in the cabin. Link??

291. I'm talking about the people the LAPD attacked several days ago while looking for Dorner.

In the first instance two women who were delivering newspapers from a truck similar to Dorner's were injured and their truck destroy in a hail of bullets, the police mistook two women for a 6'5" black man, shooting over 60 rounds into their truck. In the second instance a small framed white man and his wife driving a truck like Dorner's was ramed by two police cars and shot at multiple times. In both cases there was no warning, the police made no attempt to identify the occupants as Dorner, no attempt to identify a plate number. Their only intention was to kill who they blindly thought was Dorner. Luckily all four people survived, two with serious injuries and both with their vehicles destroyed.

If that is not a criminal neglect of duty I don't know what is, the police were bent on murdering Dorner to the degree that they didn't care who else they killed doing it!

307. I think we all agree that they shouldn't have shot at those people....

308. That's right we're talking about them burning down the cabin, and their previous action speak to

their intent with total disregard for the law. When you factor in the CNN footage in which police officers are clearly heard yelling to "Torch Him", the evidence is clear that the police intended to Murder Dorner!

242. Dorner wanted to go out this way...

Law Enforcement on the scene, evidently wanted the same thing. That is pretty much what I said in another thread. The fact that both sides wanted the same thing, Dorner dead. Doesn't change the fact that setting fire to the cabin was very likely wrong. Perhaps they had no choice, but I really don't believe that. I think they could have gotten him to turn himself in or at the very least I think they could have gotten him to eventually surrender. OTOH, maybe there was no way to take him alive, but setting fire to the cabin seems over kill especially if he was already dead.

262. On top of all the other problems, the strategy the cops used at that cabin was extremely reckless.

No, the blowtorch teargas canisters didn't make the situation safer for the officers or the neighborhood - they set the fucking house on fire. Gee, a raging fire really improved the safety situation...

Let's set aside the debate over whether that was intentional or not. The result was a fire that destroyed the cabin, so rather than having to deal with Dorner, they now had to deal with Dorner and a blazing inferno, putting officers at risk, as well as firefighters, and possibly the neighbors if the fire spread.

That's just icing on the cake after those two women got shot by the police during the manhunt. To be blunt, the police had completely lost their minds.

280. So now you want to split hairs over the way I identified the cabin, that's petty!

I'm not surprised by your petty complaint about the cabin, you think it helps cover your ignorance regarding the rule of law and due process. I guess we should do away with the judicial branch of government and just allow the police to be judge, jury and executioner!

289. Judge, jury and executioner?

If that wasn't so dishonest it would be funny!
Here's the thing, Dorner CHOSE to go on a killing spree, Dorner CHOSE to murder 2 cops, 2 civilians, wound 2 more cops, shoot at 2 Fish & Game Wardens, tie up hostages, carjack vehicles, invade a cabin that wasn't his, all the while shooting at the police, refuse to surrender and continue to engage the police with gunfire.
Dorner CHOSE to end it the way it ended, he made it crystal clear that he wasn't going to be take alive and he would kill as many cops as he could before he went down.

In the week that Dorner was on the run, he could have, at any time, contacted a lawyer, the media and trusted friends and surrendered at any police station of his choosing in front of all the witness's, no, instead he continued his murderous spree and the rest is history.

In no way was he, as you so dishonestly put it, murdered by the police.

302. I'll say it again

297. It wasnt the police bussiness to punish and torture him.

Can you even imagine how excruciating is being burn alive?? Two wrongs don't make a right. And police had no bussiness being the judge and the executioner. I begin to think some of you really can't feel human empathy. Or have a sense of legal boundaries.

301. Crap.

There were several reports of a single gunshot as the fire lit up. I'll bet that as the fire started, that fucking coward offed himself.

Can you imagine how excruciating it is to get shot by a mad man? Or how excruciating it is to be severely wounded by a mad man?
Are you denying that Dorner wasn't going to surrender? Are you denying that Dorner CHOSE the course of action he took?
My sense of empathy is towards the victims of this murdering monster, not him. I hope there's a special place in hell for monsters like him.

You want to talk about legal boundaries? How about the legal boundaries he crossed time and time again?

I can't believe that someone would actually have any empathy for this murdering monster.

303. How do you know he offed himself??

You don't! As a matter if fact, while they were torching the cabin, the law enforcement weren't even sure if the person inside was Dorner it not.

How would you feel if it was you the subject of police abuse and injustice? Afterall you don't have to be a criminal aparently , to get 46 rounds shot at you while minding your bussiness. You should think twice before siding with abusive and corrupt practices, which have nothing to do with what our legal system stands for.

304. No, I don't know for sure that he offed himself,

but there were reports of a single gunshot as the fire flared up, which usually indicates that the suspect has committed suicide.
The police were confident that Dorner was inside as he killed a deputy and wounded another as he was entering the cabin in question.

And WTF does LAPD shooting innocent people have to do with Dorner being a murdering monster?
Just where did I side with abusive and corrupt practices?

Your clear bias of LE is clouding your judgement, Dorner got exactly what he deserved and I won't shed any tears for that monster, the country and world are a better place without him.

I think your empathy is a little misplaced, it should be for the victims of this waste of a human.

309. You conveniently ignore the other murderous party to these events, the police!

You make it sound as if a person expecting the police not to murder people is the same as having empathy for Dorner. That's because you are willing to overlook the unlawful actions of the police, blaming those unlawful action on Dorner. Dorner was a murderer, and the police also are murderers.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that two wrongs make a right, that vigilantism is right because the person it was used against was wrong, vigilantism is wrong it is against the law the same way that Dorner's actions were against the law!
Stop making excuses for one murderer because of another murderer.